Not really new but mixing propellant for this "Q" motor is a big turn off. In fact performance of chemical rockets is beginning to disappoint me in general.

We need something better than chemical rockets!

Someone stated there was no option to chemical rockets and that's just not true there is an alternative right now and they are Nuclear Rockets!

Nuclear Rockets have been tested and they have an ISP in the 1000's THAT sounds like a rocket to me! That sounds like what we really need! These rockets work IN ATMOSPHERE and are SSTA (single stage to anywhere!)

These are not theoretical engines they run on heat from a Nuclear Reactor the only reason they are not used is safety. Because they do work!

The problem is they use fission reactors and from what I see here the chemical rocket is indeed going to go the way of the dodo! It's just a matter of time.

What we need is a fusion reactor! Then space travel will become common. Looking at chemical rockets they are a waste of time.

I have decided that I am going to turn my research to electrostatic confinement because to me it only makes sense in so many way's. Any other means on confinement is to heavy and too everything else! Including radiation.

So I am building an electrostatic confinement reactor myself to see if there is anything we can add to the effort on that front.

I think rehashing the same ol chemical rocket is a waste of time. The only thing you need to do chemical rockets is money and anyone with enough money can do that! We are going to have to think a lot harder than that to reach our goals.

So having just reached the ability to launch large solid rockets (not very far off from liquids either) I find it wanting in a big way. Being that my upbringing in in particle physics anyway I think I will turn back to my roots and seek a solution there.

Attachment:

pluto.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post._________________Today's the day! We go into Space!

I think there has been some more recent stuff on this effect but it looks like its less likely to leave chunks of the atmosphere radioactive or have runaway effects IMHO than even ordinary uncontained fusion events that have been considered for propulsion.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

I did quite like the idea of the original Dyson Orion project I would be much happier if all our teeth were slightly radioactive because we had conquered the solar system rather than the macho who could make the biggest bang. But with 20/20 hindsight the only way they would have financed the original Orion project would have been if they had taken Dyson up on his offer of building them the continent killer nukes which could have made the world a lot more unstable during the cold war and we may not be here now if it had happened.

But along with the hydrogen boron approach to fusion I mentioned above there does seem to be yet another interesting approach to possible fusion that can be built on the desktop.

Well here's my theory posted on another forum. Feel free to punch holes in it. Alex I don't think we will blow up the planet

Postby Monroe Lee King Jr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:34 amWhat I'd really like to see is a paper on the quantum mechanical change that occurs in the fusion process. What happens exactly on the quantum level during fusion? Is there a quantum resonance we can take advantage of?

I hope you forgive my enthusiasm but you see I don't think particles fuse because they overcome the Coulomb Barrier alone and I think tunneling is not really tunneling. I think particles have to line up on a quantum level to fuse and sometimes they do this at a lower energy and that's what they call tunneling. I believe when they line up on the quantum level they are actually attracted to each other otherwise they would never fuse at all ever. I think that we force fusion simply by causing more collisions and that increases the odds dramatically of this quantum alignment. I think fission occurs because the structure of the nucleus of the atoms used have a kind of crystal structure that allows them to be split and the resulting cascade of particles is like a shock wave shattering the rest of the material on a quantum level. I don'tthink the path of the cascading particles are random in a critical mass I think the process is governed on a quantum level threw out the material.

I think we are going about fusion in the wrong way with brute force when what we really need is to figure out the quantum alignment that causes the "tunneling" We need to manipulate this alignment, so what we need is to understand what is happening at the sub atomic level that causes the fatal attraction.

I'm going to go one step further in my explanation. I believe one step further in quantum mechanics we have to take into account we share this universe with other universes in other dimensions and at some point I believe at some level we share particles with them and there is a phase for every dimension and at some level there is a fundamental frequency of those phases that particles wink in and out of our dimension. If M theory is correct to some degree there seems to 11 dimensions and that does line up somewhat with what I'm seeing.I don't think anything is random I think it's all governed andcalculable. I believe you can know the exact path of a particle before it's ever created in this reality if you know what is going to happen at this fundamental frequency that we exchange particles with other dimensions and in fact I believe there is a finite number of reactions taking place in our universe based on the number of phases that exist.That number would probably equal the number of particles we share times the fundamental frequency times the number of phases.

Having thought about it just a little more that frequency could be 160.2GHz the frequency of the residual background radiation of the big bang. Or that frequency is a harmonic of Planck time which may be the fundamental frequency.Fusion only happens when the right particles are present in our space time and increasing the number of ions only increases the chances of the correct phase alignment.

Monroe

What I like about this theory there is a way to test it! We can try it and if it doesn't work we can move on. A theory without a way to test it IMO is a waste of time. It probably wont work but I think it's worth a shot at least we will try something. Theory at this limit is worth a test I'd say. Hey if we get lucky everybody wins! If not I wont spend the rest of my life searching for the answer to the fusion question.

Oh and by the way I think Hydrogen is at the peak of the background radiation and the other elements fall down that peak in order. Yeah, the B-11 reaction is the holy grail but I think just to prove or disprove the theory Hydrogen (deuterium) is the way to go because we can measure the neutron radiation and tell right away if we are on the right track or not.

Not going to knock it down but I may have some thoughts on it. I also tend towards the many worlds interpretation and more or less next to each other photons as in interference from ones in the next univi would be a good explanation of the twin slit experiments. I am also all for using resonant frequencies to do stuff more simply. But Planck time maybe where theoretical maths has taken us beyond a real limit in the same way waters properties phase change when they become ice. It could be that if there is a basic plank length spacetime entity and I do go with the quantised view of the universe for many reasons then entities like photons could be many times its size a multiple of them interacting in a certain way in which case Planck time would be meaningless and you would have to have a higher level base time unit dependant upon the frequency and wavelength of the aforesaid photon.

Also if I am understanding your idea correctly you might have to have the matter you want to fuse at about 3 kelvin whilst you are attempting to fuse it which I think is likely to be quite hard as beam of photons to vibrate at around 160.2GHz(i am assuming you would have to tune according to the exact temperature) is going to have to be a maser array with antenna elements that are changeable to a very high degree of accuracy between 1 and 2 mm. And if you wanted to experiment at room temperature you would have to have a high terrahertz IR laser which you can cannibalise from old DVD writers but I would not know how you could fine tune the frequency tho you may be able to get round it by fine tuning the temperature and sticking with a fix frequency laser.

Oh well its getting late here I am now imagining you shining an IR laser thru a sugar crystal in the fridge with the door open I think it may be time for bed please wait to blow up the planet until late afternoon GMT I want to be wide awake to see the special effects.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

I think Planck time may not be as relevant as the frequency of the background radiation and actually this experiment may shine some incite on Planck time as well if successful. The experiment is to use a resonate chamber and introduce the deuterium. The chamber is a fusor device and if that frequency is of any relevance it should show an increase in neutron production. I plan to resonate the chamber with a klystron at 160.2 Ghz (actually between 120 to 220 Ghz). Right now I need some Gunn Diodes to build a down converter to be able to tune the chamber. I can build the chamber within reason close enough to resonant and nickel plate the cavity to resonance.

Was having a discussion with "a super smart guy" lol and I was going to start into calculations with him when I noticed HEY! Just hold your tunnelling equations up to a mirror see what's in the middle there? Now rotate 90 and 180 degrees.There's nothing that much wrong with the equations they just don't take into account the exchange of particles and the phase angles. And they don't explain the particle interaction rather they try to explain their view of it. That's where they fall apart at some point.

I am all for empirical checking of theories I don't know if this will help but here is an article about a kid who has produced neutrons by fusor fusion and there are also a few names dropped that may help with your research.

I'm an old fan of the fusor in fact I got into em around 1996. I got into High Vacuum in 1992 at "The Bell Jar" Hanging out at fusor.net right now blabin about this and that. Check out fusor.net I think the youngest builder to achieve fusion ie=neutron production is 13.

The fusor is a well know IEC (inertial electrostatic confinement)device designed by farnsworth the inventor of the television. The reason I chose the fusor is it produces a measurable amount of fusion and would make an easy way to test my theory. If it works we'll get more neutrons if it doesn't nothing will change.

There is another possibility to give it a try with cold fusion if (and I mean if) it was ever close to fusion pumping it with 120-220 Ghz might push the reaction over the top. That's just a secondary thought and a passing one at that. I'm going with the fusor because it produces known neutron emissions.

It seems to me physicist postulate in our dimension but rarely postulate what may be going on in another dimension. I think it's time we started trying to figure out extra dimensional physics based on what we now about our dimension being a mirror image out of phase with other dimensions.I think that's what we need to make all the cool gadgets work right. Understand that there is some fundamental frequency of the universe that these relationships are based on and the phase changes required to interact inter dimensionally.

Monroe

I think our current physics are good we just don't know how we interact with other dimensions physically or take into account natural particle exchange with other dimensions.

Isn't that what string theory is all about? That's been the big mainstream theoretical research subject for the last couple of decades, and it has somewhere between 9 and 11 spatial dimensions depending on the variant IIUC.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

It is from my understanding of it however I am self taught and this is just a theory I have to prove it. I'm unaware of any other theory that may be similar to actually test it. Therefor I'm endeavoring to do so, it makes sense for me. I don't have anyone arguing with me against it, so sounds like a must try to me.

Trying is always good. We need a lot more people who talk about wild ideas on the Internet to go and do the calculations and build an experiment. So good luck!

As a matter of terminology, you have a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a bunch of statements about the working of nature that have withstood a good number of attempts at falsifying them. A hypothesis is an idea that is stated precisely enough to be testable.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus